Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+43\s+feet\s+pole\s+for\s+vertical\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 43 feet pole for vertical (score: 1)
Author: Hans Hammarquist <hanslg@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:00:17 -0400 (EDT)
I was wondering if someone has experience with a 43 foot vertical, mounted on top of a tower. I used one before on top of my roof, but that one was supported with simple guy wires. Needless to say th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2012-10/msg00426.html (6,964 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 feet pole for vertical (score: 1)
Author: K8RI <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 03:35:18 -0400
tower. I used one before on top of my roof, but that one was supported with simple guy wires. Needless to say that is not easy to do if I put it on top of my tower (85 feet tall). Any suggestion? May
/archives//html/Towertalk/2012-11/msg00001.html (8,950 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 feet pole for vertical (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:03:32 -0400
There *is* no such thing as simple trig, if your last brush with a cosine was 56 years ago! Fortunately, you can back this one out with the old hypotenuse formula. Even I remember how to do that. 73,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2012-11/msg00002.html (10,615 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 feet pole for vertical (score: 1)
Author: "Gene Fuller" <w2lu@rochester.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 08:28:27 -0400
For anyone who is "trig challenged",, pencil, paper and a ruler and using about 8 feet to an inch (i.e.1/8th of an inch to a foot) would probably work out close enough. Anyway, trig wouldn't allow fo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2012-11/msg00007.html (12,128 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 feet pole for vertical (score: 1)
Author: K8RI <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:57:45 -0400
I have to confess it's not been quite that long, but I'm only 72. <:-)) Actually I never took trig, which is quite a trick because I have a math minor. Try Calc II without ever having had trig. That
/archives//html/Towertalk/2012-11/msg00011.html (11,919 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 feet pole for vertical (score: 1)
Author: K8RI <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:59:31 -0400
On 11/1/2012 8:28 AM, Gene Fuller wrote: For anyone who is "trig challenged",, pencil, paper and a ruler and using about 8 feet to an inch (i.e.1/8th of an inch to a foot) would probably work out clo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2012-11/msg00012.html (12,467 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 feet pole for vertical (score: 1)
Author: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:52:40 -0500
The mechanical considerations of mounting a 43-foot vertical topside on a tower are considerable. But the electrical considerations aren't trivial, either. As I understand, without proper isolation o
/archives//html/Towertalk/2012-11/msg00014.html (14,588 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 feet pole for vertical (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:02:34 -0700
And after all that, the elevation pattern would be considerably inferior to a dipole, as documented in the ARRL Antenna Handbook in a graph illustrating the pseudo Brewster angle effects for horizont
/archives//html/Towertalk/2012-11/msg00016.html (8,305 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 feet pole for vertical (score: 1)
Author: "Mark Robinson" <markrob@mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:16:31 -0400
I read an article somewhere where the ham had some experimenting with the radiation angle of an elevated 1/4 wave vertical. As you raise the vertical you get lower radiation angles up to a point. Bey
/archives//html/Towertalk/2012-11/msg00017.html (9,378 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 feet pole for vertical (score: 1)
Author: K8RI <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:11:04 -0400
The model I seem to recall, either by K9YC or W8JI, involved the feedline running to the base of the tower to a choke and then up the tower to another choke at the feedpoint. And after all that, the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2012-11/msg00019.html (10,090 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 feet pole for vertical (score: 1)
Author: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 17:16:52 -0500
Rick, YES! Thanks for reminding me. You're absolutely right. And now that you've reminded me, THAT is exactly the conclusion that K9YC came to. _______________________________________________ _______
/archives//html/Towertalk/2012-11/msg00022.html (9,391 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu